State of the art: femtosecond laser cataract surgery...History of Cataract Now, 40 years later a new...

$: State of the art: femtosecond laser cataract surgery...History of Cataract Now, 40 years later a new way of lens replacement surgery has arrived: Laser Refractive Lens Surgery with$
State of the art:

femtosecond laser cataract surgery

Moschou Konstantinos M.D.

Diathlasis Day Care Unit

13th Ophthalmology Congress of ΟΕΤΗΑΜΒΑ

July 9-10, 2016

Samothraki Village Hotel

Samothraki, Greece

I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST

Diathlasis Day Care Unit, Thessaloniki, Greece

History of Cataract

The history of cataract surgery dates back to at least 800 BC when

Sushruta in India described the technique

It took more than 2500 years for Jaques Daviel of France to invent ECCE in

1747

200 years later (1950) Sir Harold Ridley implanted the first posterior

chamber IOL

27 years later (1967) Charles Kelman introduced phacoemulsification

Today phacoemulsification is the gold standard of cataract surgery

Its rise was made possible by the invention of capsulorhexis, the use of

foldable IOLs, the use of viscoelastics


History of Cataract

Now, 40 years later a new way of lens replacement surgery has arrived:

Laser Refractive Lens Surgery with a Femtosecond Laser

Prof. Zoltan Nagy performed the fist Laser Refractive Lens Surgery with

a Femtosecond Laser in 2008 (LenSx – ALCON)


What is a Femtosecond Laser?

1053 nm Neodymium

A laser that emits optical pulses with a duration in the range of

femtosecond (1fs = 10-15 seconds)

This feature allows the light to be focused at a 3μm spot size, accurate

within 5μm in the anterior segment.

Allows for precise cutting of tissue with minimal collateral damage

In ophthalmology surgery since 2001

First FDA approved for LASIK flaps in 2001 and 2010 for cataract

surgery


Commercially Available Systems

Z8 (Ziemer)

Alcon LenSx

LensAR

Catalys Optimedica

Victus B+L



Femtolaser Catalys LenSx Lensar Victus Femto LDV Z8

FDA approvals

corneal + arcuate incisions

Ant. Capsulotomy lens fragmentation






Ant. Capsulotomy Corneal flap

is not cleared in the United

States

CE mark Same as FDA Same as FDA Same as FDA



is not cleared in in all other countries



With guidance systems OCT or Scheimpflug

technology it is used to make:

Capsulorhexis

Clear corneal incisions

Arcuate incisions

Lens Fragmentation


Reproducible size, shape and well-centered

Too large Too small Irregular shape Off center

No capsule-IOL overlap

IOL tilt

Phimosis

Difficult phaco maneuver

IOL tilt

IOL decentration

IOL decentration

Edge catches visual axis

Ideal Capsulorhexis


Femtosecond Laser Capsulorhexis

Reproducible, Precise Circular Shape and Diameter Capsulotomy

Enables Image-Guided Centration of Capsulotomy


Manual Surgery Femtocat. Surgery

Manual vs. Femtocataract Surgery 1 month postop


Does Capsulotomy Size Impact ELPo?

Consistent capsulorhexis diameter is critical to Effective Lens Position1,2.

A 4 mm capsulorhexis results in longer post-operative ELPo than does a 6 mm capsulorhexis for the type of IOL used 3.

To ensure that an IOL’s position in the bag matches the anticipated formula used to calculate its power, the capsulorhexis should be round, centered and smaller than the IOL optic.

1. Hill WE. Hitting Emmetropia. Chang D. (ed.) In: Mastering Refractive IOLs – The Art and Science. Slack, Incorporated, 2008.

2. Hill WE. Does the Capsulorhexis Affect Refractive Outcomes? Chang D. (ed.) In: Cataract Surgery Today, Bryn Mawr Communications, Wayne, Pennsylvania 2009. p. 78.

3. Cekic, Batman. Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers, March 1999


Femtosecond Laser Phacofragmentation

Liquefy pattern requires I&A only, no phaco power

Chop pattern efficiently fragments the lens for

removal with reduced phaco power and time


Incision Configurations Single or Multiplane

Computerized programming of incision patterns

Customizable geometry

Angle

Depth

Width


Different operating environment

Laser-generated gas increases the capsular bag volume

The nucleus fragmentation technique is altered

There are laser-included changes within the cortex that make

cortical removal different

Less viscoelastic is required

Hydrodissection may be eliminated


New problems

Incomplete capsulorhexis can result in radial extension

Miosis

Capsular block sydrome

Poor incisions

Subconjuctival hemorrage


Safety of FLACS


Who is not a candidate?

Does not dilate past 5,5mm

Retinal and optic nerve disease: h/o AION

Advanced glaucoma w/VF loss

Effects of IOP elevation during docking?

Fuch’s / corneal edema

An advantage with Fuch’s (easier capsulorhexis) reduction in

endothelial cell loss


Inability to dock:

Corneal surface irreg, conjuntivochalasis, trabec bleb, unusual orbital

anatomy (small, deep, excess retropulsion)

Agitated patients

Not so good candidates


Femtosecond Cataract Innovations

Pediatric cataract surgery

Posterior laser–assisted capsulotomy

Development of new IOL types implanted with a completely new mode of fixation

Statistical analysis between laser assisted and conventional cataract, based on a sample of Diathlasis Day Care Unit.


Gender distribution

Age distribution

Prefecture distribution

IOL type distribution

Comparison of post-operative outcome between the two methods

Purpose: To compare the 1 month post-operative SE and UDVA between

Laser Assisted and Conventional Cataract, by Monofocal, Multifocal, TMF

and Toric IOLs.

Setting: Diathlasis Day Care Unit, Thessaloniki, Greece

Are the visual results better than manual surgery?

Statistical analysis between laser assisted and conventional cataract

surgery, based on a sample of Diathlasis Day Care Unit.


Laser-assisted Cataract Gender Distribution

TOTAL NUMBER

OF EYES (n) FEMALE MALE

90 50 40

100% 55.56% 44%

56% 44%

Laser-assisted Cataract Gender Distribution

FEMALE

MALE


Laser-assisted Cataract Age Distribution

Age = (55.40 ± 11.987) years 17 years < Age range < 87 years

Mode = 50 years


Laser-assisted Cataract Prefecture Distribution


IOL Type Eyes (n) Eyes (%)

MONOFOCAL 46 51%

MULTIFOCAL 13 14%

TMF 4 4%

TORIC 27 30%

Laser-assisted Cataract IOL Type Distribution

n=90 eyes


1 month post-operative SE by IOL type for patients undergoing Laser-assisted cataract surgery

SE monofocal IOL =(-0.604D ± 0.769D) -2.13D< SE post-operative range <0.50D

SE multifocal IOL =(-0.125D ± 0.228D) -0.75D< SE post-operative range <0.00D

SE toric IOL =(-0.452D ± 0.668D) -2.38D< SE post-operative range <0.25D

SE TMF IOL =(-0.188D ± 0.217D) -0.38D< SE post-operative range <0.00D


1 month post-operative UDVA by IOL type for patients undergoing Laser-assisted cataract surgery


Comparison of 1month post-operative SE between Laser assisted & Conventional Cataract


Comparison of 1month post-operative UDVA between Laser assisted & Conventional Cataract


Comparison of 1 month post-operative SE between the two methods by Monofocal IOL

SE Laser-assisted=(-0.604D ± 0.769D) -2.125D< SE post-operative range <+0.50D

SE Conventional=(-0.473D ± 0.651D)

-2.125D< SE post operative range <+1.75D


Comparison of 1 month post-operative UDVA between Laser Assisted & Conventional Cataract, by Monofocal IOL


Comparison of 1 month post-operative SE between the two methods by Multifocal IOL

SE Laser-assisted=(-0.125D ± 0.228D) -0.75D< SE post-operative range <0.00D




Comparison of 1 month post-operative UDVA between the two methods by Multifocal IOL


Comparison of 1 month post-operative SE between the two methods by TMF IOL





Comparison of 1 month post-operative UDVA between the two methods by TMF IOL


Comparison of 1 month post-operative SE between the two methods by Toric IOL





Comparison of 1 month post-operative UDVA between the two methods by Toric IOL


Comparing laser-assisted vs. conventional refractive cataract surgery Premium IOLs improve visual and refractive outcomes

This was a retrospective study that compared the visual outcomes of 32 eyes from 32 patients undergoing laser assisted refractive cataract surgery with Alcon LenSx (laser group) vs. 30 eyes from 30 patients undergoing nventional refractive cataract surgery (conventional group), all with implantation of premium IOLs —e.g. Alcon AcrySof IQ Toric IOL (Toric), Alcon ReStor IOL (ReStor), and AMO Tecnis Multifocal IOL (TMF)—by the same surgeon, TJ. The primary outcomes were refractive measures mean spherical equivalent (MSE) and uncorrected logMAR acuity at one month post op.

Factors such as age, sex, axial length, preoperative corneal keratometry, and IOL types

were assessed to ensure similarity between the two groups. Statistical analysis was

performed using the two sample T-test and Mann-U test.

Inclusion criteria were only one eye per subject was eligible, only subjects who received a

premium IOL were included, and their target distance correction had to be plano.

Exclusion criteria were the presence of any macular abnormality, corneal dystrophy or degeneration, pseudoexfoliation, or a history of corneal surgery—LASIK, PRK, CK, or RK/AK.

September 29, 2014 By Loretta T. Ng OD FAAO, Tyrie L. Jenkins MD, Andrew L. Nguyen PhD


There is no doubt that this technology has added costs and ultimately

it is the patients who will pay for this addition to the procedure.

Who will pay for it?


Do We Really Need This?

Femtosecond laser–assisted cataract surgery seems to be a safe,

efficient, and reproducible procedure but further prospective

randomized studies will demonstrate the potential clinical benefits of

this emerging technology

Patients often will not understand what “laser cataract surgery” is and

what benefits it may provide them

Just as FemtoLASIK coexists with mechanical microkeratomes, so does

FLACS coexist with manual surgery

There is place for both


FLACS

Is Femto cataract surgery here to stay?


Femtosecond Laser Cataract Surgery Is this the future?


THANK YOU

State of the art: femtosecond laser cataract surgery...History of Cataract Now, 40 years later a new...

Documents

Transcript of State of the art: femtosecond laser cataract surgery...History of Cataract Now, 40 years later a new...